The NHLPA has published a brief recap of its proposal to the owners. We’ll just cut and paste it below. Pretty sure they won’t claim copyright infringement.

Key aspects of the proposal that were made public include:

—- Players compensation would grow at fixed rates which would result in player compensation being reduced by potentially more than $800 million over the next three seasons (depending on revenue growth)

—- A significantly expanded and simplified revenue sharing system specifically designed to help clubs in need of assistance

—- Increased flexibility for teams; will help GMs to put their teams together including awarding extra draft picks for teams in difficulty, allowing teams to trade dollars and players and in limited cases, allow for small amount of teams to go over or under the salary cap

Under the NHLPA proposal, at the end of three years, the players would have an option for a fourth which would ‘snap-back’ to the current agreement.

In essence, the players are proposing to partner with the financially stronger NHL owners to bring stability to the industry and assist those clubs that are less financially stable. In summary, the alternative proposal seeks to fix the problems that exist, instead of focusing on problems that don’t.

It’ll be interesting to see how the league maintains a unified front against the players with regards to the expanded revenue sharing system the union has proposed.

Suffice to say “less financially stable” teams would love to get more money from the “financially stronger” franchises, but first the owners will try to get as much as they can from the players.

Chances are this whole thing will end with the players taking a smaller cut of revenues and the owners agreeing to an expanded revenue-sharing system. How much of a cut and how big of an expansion is what needs to be negotiated.

I’m actually a huge fan of this proposal. When it first came out about trading cap space, I didn’t really understand it but could see why people thought it would help the richer teams. But I have no reason to believe anything in this deal substantially hurts the small-market teams due to the players dedication to those teams. The NHL has an opportunity to hit a jackpot twice over right here. This proposal shows fans something that NO OTHER sport proves. These guys are not about the money, they want to play and they don’t want to alienate fans. Sure they want to be compensated but they want to play. The NHL has an opportunity to showcase this and maybe catapult itself into the 2nd most popular sport in the next 5 years. I know that may seem crazy but with the way the economy is and the way professional sports are, you can get parents to put a hockey game on over a basketball game for their kids to get them to look up to better role models. I don’t want to seem crazy or outlandish. I know how unlikely it may be. If anything, the NHL has an opportunity to put itself, at the least, slightly ahead of baseball in this country. If they allow a lockout, they are doing the absolute opposite and even if you have a 5-year run of LA, NY, CHI, BOS, MIN or any other major markets winning Stanley Cups, the NHL, at the very best, will be at the popularity it is now. But that’s 5 years to get to the point you’ve gotten to after the last lockout! And honestly, I would say they wouldn’t get to the popularity. The NHL needs to bring in new fans, you will NEVER do that with the track record Gary Bettman has. Why should I invest in season tickets if I’m no longer confident that anytime the CBA runs, there won’t be a lockout? Season tickets are already a risky investment (especially in this economy) because you never know when you’re teams going to be bad or good or what’s going to come up in your life. It’s now a downright dumb investment if there’s a very likely possibility you’ll lose a season. Gary Bettman, you have EXACTLY what you need. A CBA that is designed to help the poorer teams and an opportunity to promote the hell out of the league at a time when like 80-90% of the major markets should be in the playoffs at least 3 out of the next 5 years with most of them competing for a Stanley Cup. You HAVE to convince the owners this is what the NHL needs. And I’m not saying this proposal exactly, but you have to make a counter-proposal that is extremely close and enticing for the NHLPA to accept. What the hell else can they give up? A HRR cut from 57% to 43% when you wanted the cut to be 46%!? You gotta take that.

bettman: the owners want more money and they want to take it out of players salaries
fehr: could be worse. my nose could be gushing blood.
bettman: your nose could be gushing..
::CHOMP::
bettman: ow! you bid my nothe!
fehr: I’M GONNA PLAY THIS STINKIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIKE A HARP FROM HELL

Hey sheckyrimjobber, dont quit your day job, as pathetic as it must be. Leave all humor on PHT to the Soup Can Army. As everyone knows, we here at The Army specialize in trashing everyone and every team, especially filly. Leave the whitty banter to us. Now go mop the restroom at Club Pegasus.

specilize in trashing everyone? all you do is talk about dudes dongs and agree with yourself using different user names. maybe you should lay down on the couch and tell me about your mother.

spydey629 - Aug 16, 2012 at 2:43 PM

The fourth year is what is going to keep this proposal from being accepted. No way the owners bite on that. It’s the poison bill of the proposal.

I can see them working within the parameters that the PA laid out in the first three years though. It all depends on how much the revenue split works out to.

Using both proposals, here is what I see as “the perfect compromise”:

1- Revenue split in a range of 54-45 to 50-50 (54 in the players favor)
2- Anything cut from the current 57% goes to revenue sharing (3-7% in this case)
3- Arbitration stays
4- Free Agency stays at seven years
5- Contract Length gets capped at 7 years

That covers the majority of the big items… keeping my fingers crossed.

therealjr - Aug 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

“will help GMs to put their teams together including awarding extra draft picks for teams in difficulty”

what in the world is this about? high picks aren’t enough? this is still a competition not a commune, right?

comeonnowguys - Aug 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM

My only problem with the PA’s first offer is that it seems almost, for lack of a better term, “too good to be true.” Other than that… I don’t see it right away.

The cynic in me thinks there’s something similar to what @spydey alludes to, something on the surface that doesn’t seem like much, but it’s something they know will force the owners to balk in the hopes of destroying the owners’ PR power from the start.